Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tonitrus]

Presumably if Starmer resigns, Labour has a leadership election and a new prime minister.

How long until the next general election in the UK?

As much as ~four years isn't it?  I don't think a new PM would want to risk an election in the near term...better to try and succeed and hope everyone forgets. 

But that would take a solid/successful PM...are there really any good candidates?

[Sheilbh]

Presumably if Starmer resigns, Labour has a leadership election and a new prime minister.

How long until the next general election in the UK?

2029.

It also turns out I was late - and Starmer's situation was a little more complicated. The Tories proposed a "humble address" that would force the government to reveal the documents around Mandelson's appointment. The government tried to amend that to allow the Cabinet Office (civil service) to redact documents for national security etc.

There was then a Labour revolt - led by former Deputy Leader and potential successor - Angela Rayner, which made it clear that the government would lose that vote. So, under pressure, the government caved and agreed to an amendment that means the documents will be reviewed and redacted/withheld by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (which is a joint committee of MPs and peers).

Starmer's defence at this point basically seems to be that while he was warned that Mandelson had continued to be friendly with Epstein, he lied during the due diligence process. He had hoped to quickly release some documents showing that, but, unfortunately for him, the Met have blocked that as potentially "prejudicial" to their investigation. I'm just also very unsure that it's a politically sustainable defence. Badenoch's question "did the official security vetting he received metion Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?" And Starmer's response is "yes, it did" - I don't think people are listening to the rest of that answer. Which is basically that the correct process was followed and Mandelson was dishonest in that "including in response to the due diligence". I also think that Mandelson's persona/backstory is as a spin doctor and very wily political operator but he's not known for his probity - I mean his nickname in the New Labour days was "the Prince of Darkness". So pinning your defence on Peter Mandelson not being fully upfront and fulsomely honest feels a little "New York financier, Jeffrey Epstein?"

Edit: Incidentally one other thing to watch is the European element as from 2004-08 Mandelson was Commissioner for Trade - and I suspect he didn't just go quiet in those years.

Also - I think it was mentioned that Labour has a different mechanism for challenging leaders than the Tories. How can the Labour party force Starmer out? Or is it purely a "it's too embarrassing, so you better resign" kind of thing?

I think at this point a few cabinet resignations would be enough to force Starmer out.

The difference is basically that the Tories have separated removing a leader from electing a replacement. Tory leaders can be removed via a vote of no confidence. After that there is a leadership election (and the previous leader whether they resigned or lost a confidence vote cannot stand). Tory MPs basically do a series of knock-out votes until they're down to two final candidates, which goes to the party membership.

In Labour, the way of removing an existing leader is to elect a new one. There is no confidence mechanism to just remove a leader. An existing leader is automatically entered into the leadership election. And there are no knock-out rounds for the parliamentary party to narrow down the options for the party membership. All the candidates go to the membership on a ranked vote. So Corbyn continued as leader for another 3 years after 80% of his MPs voted no confidence in him because he beat the leadership challenge (he actually increased his mandate from the party members).

I think this is part of what is structuring the issue - but the actual mechanism isn't really relevant in terms of a leader being forced out. Labour's process of removing a sitting leader is to elect a new one and because Labour don't have rounds of MPs voting for a new leader, they can't even use a stalking horse. That means there's basically a Mexican standoff between the different factions (and within the factions to make sure they unite behind one candidate/don't split their vote). I suspect if there was a confidence vote or stalking horse route (like the Tories) to removing a leader, Starmer would already be gone or facing that challenge.

But all the Tory PMs who were removed in recent years resigned because it wasn't politically sustainable for them to carry on. In terms of the actual party rulebook mechanism for removing them, both Theresa May and Boris Johnson survived confidence votes but, not well enough to actually survive as leader. I suspect that if there's a few cabinet resignations, it'd be very difficult for Starmer to hold on - though he might decide to force a full leadership challenge and contest that election with the party membership (which he'd lose).

But that would take a solid/successful PM...are there really any good candidates?

At this point I think literally the re-animated corpse of Ramsay MacDonald would be a more successful, effective and charismatic Labour leader than Starmer.

One of the aspects that's probably being feverishly worked out right now is that basically an awful lot of the Labour right have been very, very close to Mandelson for decades. So if Wes Streeting was their candidate, while Starmer was leader of the opposition, Streeting went to a weekly dinner with Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney (Starmer's Chief of Staff) and others on the Labour right. Indeed that includes Streeting's partner, Joe Dancey, who was a Labour comms person and worked as Mandelson's political assistant back in the 2000s.

I'm not sure if there's anyone effective on the Labour right who would not be, in some way, tainted by Mandelson given the role he has in Labour politics and it'd certainly be difficult to find a back office team that had clean hands.

[HVC]

I don't know why you guys keep overlooking the lettuce

[Jacob]

So there's the Labour right and they're mostly tainted.

Who will they likely be running against? Presumably there's a wooly left of some kind? Do they have a chance?

Are there other factions?

[Tonitrus]

I guess it is like the old Vulcan proverb..."only Churchill could come out of the wilderness". 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Mandelson lied during the due diligence process Starmer says 

Well this really is unprecedented. If bad people lie during due diligence or vetting processes then how can the British state possibly know that they are dealing with a bad'un?

A risible defence. Like many I was astounded when Mandelson was appointed, he has been well dodgy for decades and nobody with any sense would have anything to do with him. Any semi-literate twit in the provinces knows this, so how can it have escaped Starmer's notice?

[The Brain]

How did he pass the security check? Maybe he failed it but it was overruled by Starmer.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

And then people wonder why the electorate loses trust in the system.

[garbon]

And then people wonder why the electorate loses trust in the system.

I was also thinking that as I watched members of the cabinet interviewed try to act like there was nothing to this and the media is misrepresenting what has occurred.

The obvious lies don't build trust.

[Valmy]

Labour now has a golden opportunity to clean house and get a fresh start. I doubt they will use it, but it's right there.

[crazy canuck]

How did he pass the security check? Maybe he failed it but it was overruled by Starmer.

How would a UK security check have picked this up?  The incriminating evidence was contained in FBI files.

[The Brain]

How did he pass the security check? Maybe he failed it but it was overruled by Starmer.

How would a UK security check have picked this up?  The incriminating evidence was contained in FBI files.

Presumably the same way British intelligence identifies any security problem a candidate tries to hide.

[crazy canuck]

How did he pass the security check? Maybe he failed it but it was overruled by Starmer.

How would a UK security check have picked this up?  The incriminating evidence was contained in FBI files.

Presumably the same way British intelligence identifies any security problem a candidate tries to hide.

You may have watched too many James Bond movies

[The Brain]

How did he pass the security check? Maybe he failed it but it was overruled by Starmer.

How would a UK security check have picked this up?  The incriminating evidence was contained in FBI files.

Presumably the same way British intelligence identifies any security problem a candidate tries to hide.

You may have watched too many James Bond movies

[Sheilbh]

So there's the Labour right and they're mostly tainted.

Who will they likely be running against? Presumably there's a wooly left of some kind? Do they have a chance?

Are there other factions?

The main MPs you hear talked about as leadership candidates are Wes Streeting (Health Secretary) and Shabana Mahmood (Home Secretary) from the Labour right and Angela Rayner (former Deputy Leader and Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary) and Ed Miliband (former Leader and Net Zero Secretary). Mahmood is less tainted by association than Streeting, but Labour members don't like her because she's got the immigration brief and also it feels unlikely that, having never even elected a woman as leader, Labour would choose a British-Pakistani Muslim woman as leader (imputed bigotry is a huge issue with Labour). Ed Miliband is very, very popular with the grassroots - he was in the same cabinet as Mandelson, but he was broadly on the other side of factional fights with Mandelson and kept distance during his leadership. Angela Rayner is also very popular with the grassroots but had to resign as deputy leader and from the cabinet over her tax affairs (plus Labour's never elected a woman leader so if there is a white man on the ballot my instinct is Labour will choose them).

Strikingly Rayner corralled the backbenchers into forcing the government to back down over the security assessments of Mandelson and she was described as being out in force on the parliamentary estate yesterday. She had a full team with her, her partner (a former Labour MP who was de-selected by Starmer) was around as well - lots of meeting backbench MPs.

In terms of factions there's basically three. Labour right which is 90% New Labour/Blair/1990s tribute acts (with a tiny smattering of "Blue Labour" types who are like the Old Labour right). The soft left (which would be Miliband and Rayner) which was the faction Starmer was associated with when he ran for leader and by some distance the majority of Labour MPs and members. There's also the hard left but given Starmer's purges, I'm not sure they have the numbers to even nominate a candidate.

Mandelson lied during the due diligence process Starmer says 

Well this really is unprecedented. If bad people lie during due diligence or vetting processes then how can the British state possibly know that they are dealing with a bad'un?

A risible defence. Like many I was astounded when Mandelson was appointed, he has been well dodgy for decades and nobody with any sense would have anything to do with him. Any semi-literate twit in the provinces knows this, so how can it have escaped Starmer's notice?

Particularly risible given that amont the arguments for Starmer were that his experience as Director of Public Prosecutions meant he'd be forensic. That he was, as Rayner used to put it, "Mr Propriety", and that he'd "end the psychodrama".

I'd add that Starmer's team are also briefing that he didn't like Mandelson, it wasn't really his pick etc. And that habit of blaming other people is just pathetic in a prime minister.

I was also thinking that as I watched members of the cabinet interviewed try to act like there was nothing to this and the media is misrepresenting what has occurred.

The obvious lies don't build trust.

Yeah I mean this is in part just the way cabinet government and collective responsibility always work when there's a scandal. But I think it exposes itself when the underlying facts are so indefensible.

Labour now has a golden opportunity to clean house and get a fresh start. I doubt they will use it, but it's right there.

I think that's quite difficult. I can't think of an equivalent figure to Mandelson anywhere else but he is a really important part of the Labour party's story for the last 40+ years. He was the director of communications under Neil Kinnock who started modernising and professionalising the party - he stopped party conference singing "The Red Flag" and changed the party symbol from a red flag to a red rose. He ran the first US style professional campaign. He was key in the rise of Tony Blair and New Labour, acting as his consigliere (with Alastair Campbell) before having to resign (twice) from the cabinet following scandals.

Then he becomes an EU Commissioner before getting recalled by Brown during the financial crisis to become Deputy Prime Minister, Business Secretary, campaign chief etc. After 2010 he becomes a lobbyist (I actually thought his comeuppance would be his firm's extensive work for Chinese clients) but is still very much involved in Labour party politics. He is a key figure in the campaign for second referendum on Brexit and coordinating the anti-Corbyn forces in Labour. Then he ends up as Ambassador to the US - but even then, Starmer did a big re-shuffle last year. Mandelson was in Downing Street organising the re-shuffle, which is not normal for even a political Ambassador.

There are very few people who have ever been "rising stars" in the Labour Party for the last 50 years whose paths will not have crossed Mandelson at some point.

How did he pass the security check? Maybe he failed it but it was overruled by Starmer.

It was a political decision to appoint him and the security briefing did include that Mandelson had continued to associate with Epstein after his conviction - this was also flagged by JP Morgan in their reports on Epstein and, indeed, by the media. Starmer confirmed this in PMQs yesterday (on the third round of asking at about 5 minutes):

That Mandelson was leaking the most sensitive information to Epstein wasn't known - but who can possibly blame the security services for that. Mandelson lied to them which is both out of character and utterly insurmountable